Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 25 December 2014 17:21 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C7D1A8843; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:21:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cOzYi1Nyud-j; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 857F11A8842; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Y4C6e-000GVV-Nk; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 12:21:48 -0500
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 12:21:43 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>, urn@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
Message-ID: <844A0581B9447C7703322432@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <549A58E4.30206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <5499BA48.5060807@andyet.net> <5499BED1.104@seantek.com> <5499C04C.6040605@andyet.net> <549A58E4.30206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/cp32XXF6npn0odvJS8PX6KIdadk
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:21:59 -0000
(Barry and IESG explicitly copied) --On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 15:10 +0900 "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > On 2014/12/24 04:19, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> On 12/23/14, 12:13 PM, Sean Leonard wrote: >>> Maybe. >>> >>> But there are two distinct controversies: 1) whether a >>> proposed NID follows the URN rules sufficiently to permit >>> registration, and 2) what the URN rules should be. It is >>> very difficult for people who are trying to get work done >>> under 1), to get sucked into debates about 2). >> >> Ah, I am thinking of the post-URNBIS context. Once we finish >> 2141bis, the debates will be done. Or so I hope. :-) > > I agree. Even now, the traffic isn't terribly high when > averaged over a month or so, and while Sean definitely has a > point, it's good that people who discuss the overall framework > get exposed to actual examples and vice versa. > > So I think we should put "urn@ietf.org" into the draft as the > address for review/discussions of namespace proposals, with > the understanding that this will attain force when the draft > is published as an RFC. Actually, I think we should go a step further. I think we should celebrate the new year and expected rapid progress in the WG by blocking all pending and future URN namespace registrations by referring them to the WG for formal review until 2141bis is approved and becomes the new procedure. The problem is that, as we debate details of what should be permitted in URN strings, it is at least theoretically possible to slip registrations through a small mailing list and and indifferent and noisy IETF LC process that would then give us additional legacy compatibility problems. I note that RFC 3406 not only requires IETF Consensus for new URN namespaces but explicitly quotes the portion of RFC 2434 pointing to referral to relevant WGs, so it has probably been an error to approve new URN namespaces since this "bis" WG came into being without formally asking the WG for it consensus opinion. What is done is done and I think it would be ill-advised to reopen the reviews on any namespace already approved and either registered or in some phase of the post-approval publication process, but I believe that the IETF Last Call on draft-higgs-hbbtv-urn should not be closed out and an IESG vote taken until this WG has formally reviewed it for conformance to our plans going forward and that authors or proponents of draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid draft-benjemaa-vbs-urn draft-seantek-certspec-04 draft-seantek-rdf-urn-00 draft-seantek-xmlns-urn-00 draft-snell-social-urn-01 draft-spinosa-urn-lex-09 should be notified that their drafts [1] are going to be referred to the WG for formal review when IETF Consensus approval is formally requested. Their alternative, of course, is to encourage this WG to finish its work, after which a more streamlined procedure will be in place. If any of those authors or would-be registrants believe their requests are urgent, let them convince the WG, noting that a WG-approved request should go through the IETF approval process more quickly and might even qualify for a two-week Last Call. In addition, while I would hope to not delay it, someone should send a note to this list requesting a quick review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-03 when it appears. I hope we can accomplish this change by an administrative decision rather than by document-by-document appeals based on the language of RFC 3406, the fact that there is a relevant WG, and that the referrals have not been made. john [1] List produced by a quick pass through the I-D Datatracker; may not be complete.
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- A few quick thoughts on "lex" (was" Re: [urn] con… John C Klensin
- Re: A few quick thoughts on "lex" (was" Re: [urn]… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba